Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable business context beyond those annotations: the terms are 'frozen,' the fee is 0.50 USDC with 100% off now, approval earns 90% lifetime gross revenue, and publishing/adapter installation/transfers require separate review.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by specific fee and revenue details. The description is dense but has no filler; every sentence adds information about the terms.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no parameters, and rich read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for a zero-argument getter. It highlights key term values but does not describe the full return structure, which is acceptable since the tool is self-contained and low-risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The empty schema is fully consistent, and no additional parameter meaning is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (frozen creator submission terms and bounds), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_tool_submission or submit_tool, but the unique resource makes misidentification unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The imperative 'Read frozen creator submission terms and bounds' implies the tool's purpose, so usage is inferable. However, the description offers no explicit guidance on when to call it, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.